On 03/04/2013 03:40 PM, lee.gleason at comcast.net wrote:
FYI: I bought my still working Tek 465B o'scope for $25 long ago (and
it still has a DEC asset tag on the back ;-)
I still use to debug HW.
I bought my 465 used in 1980...still use it quite often. Everything
still works and the trace is still bright and sharp.
The 465 is a damn fine scope!
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire, AK4HZ
New Kensington, PA
>Clem
>FYI: I bought my still working Tek 465B o'scope for $25 long ago (and it still has a DEC asset tag on the back ;-)
>I still use to debug HW.
I bought my 465 used in 1980...still use it quite often. Everything still works and the trace is still bright and sharp.
--
Lee K. Gleason N5ZMR
Control-G Consultants
lee.gleason at comcast.net
Apropos terminal emulation, does anyone know a terminal program (Win32, OS X, UNIX X11, anything that'll run on a non-DEC box) that will do SIXEL graphics?
I love the things, but the only thing I've found is DEC's DECW$TERM and piping this stuff over SSH just isn't the same as something running locally..
sampsa <sampsa at mac.com>
mobile +961 788 10537
On 4 Mar 2013, at 22:28, Johnny Billquist <bqt at softjar.se> wrote:
On 2013-03-04 03:58, John Wilson wrote:
From: Johnny Billquist <bqt at softjar.se>
Could you expand on how it fails?
Duh, sorry!! Here's the most egregious case:
I've tried to muse a little, but I might be totally off base here.
As far as I know, the hidden wrap flag do exist on xterm, as well as VT200 and newer terminals. So I'm mostly curious about trying to figure out in which way it differs.
(For comparison I can mention that PuTTY does not, and it is one standing issue I have with that program, as I actually use this "feature" in a program I wrote (ZEMU to be precise).)
So I did stumble upon this many years ago, and thought I knew how it worked. Your comments about a VT100 failing, and relating this to that same flag is making me curious...
Also, it would seem that, according to your posting here, John, some letters are doubled on a VT100. Even more weird.
I should probably look at the actual stream of bytes coming in. But if you have any more light to shed, I'm really interested here. But we can take this offlist.
Johnny
On 2013-03-04 03:58, John Wilson wrote:
From: Johnny Billquist <bqt at softjar.se>
Could you expand on how it fails?
Duh, sorry!! Here's the most egregious case:
I've tried to muse a little, but I might be totally off base here.
As far as I know, the hidden wrap flag do exist on xterm, as well as VT200 and newer terminals. So I'm mostly curious about trying to figure out in which way it differs.
(For comparison I can mention that PuTTY does not, and it is one standing issue I have with that program, as I actually use this "feature" in a program I wrote (ZEMU to be precise).)
So I did stumble upon this many years ago, and thought I knew how it worked. Your comments about a VT100 failing, and relating this to that same flag is making me curious...
Also, it would seem that, according to your posting here, John, some letters are doubled on a VT100. Even more weird.
I should probably look at the actual stream of bytes coming in. But if you have any more light to shed, I'm really interested here. But we can take this offlist.
Johnny
----- Original Message -----
| From: "John Wilson" <wilson at dbit.com>
| To: hecnet at Update.UU.SE
| Sent: Monday, 4 March, 2013 2:44:04 PM
| Subject: Re: [HECnet] Vt100 tester
|
| From: "Brian Schenkenberger, VAXman-" <system at TMESIS.COM>
|
| >Which tests???
|
| The worst one was with the letters going down both margins (part of
| set #1).
|
| >Are Eli Heffron still in biz?
|
| www.eli.com. I assume it's just "& son" now (Neal Heffron I think?
| he was cool). Their *awesome* dusty old shop is long gone (I was
| kicked
| out of there once in 6th or 7th grade) so I think it's
| mail-order-only,
| but they have plenty of stuff and their prices are reasonable.
| VT520s
| for less than my VT100 was!!!
Hey, looks like I can get a real DEC terminal for a reasonable price!
|
| >I've not tried these test on a plain ol' VT100. The oldest kit I've
| >used
| >was a VT220 and it passes all tests as expected.
|
| I'm sure the same is true for the author. Who'd think DEC would mess
| up
| their own compatibility? Plus the tests made no allowance for not
| having
| the AVO, which the 101 and plenty of 100s didn't.
|
| Anyway this is going to be OCD heaven -- more pointless details to
| obsess
| over! And I appreciate the warning to be on the lookout if I ever
| lose my
| mind and want to add VT220 emulation. I totally would have assumed
| it was
| just a matter of adding new stuff, not changing the old stuff.
|
| John Wilson
| D Bit
|
--
Cory Smelosky
http://gewt.net Personal stuff
http://gimme-sympathy.org Experiments
http://dev.gimme-sympathy.org Home experiments
Sorry for the side bar for those of you never been to Cambridge, MA -- but this is true DEC history ...
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 2:44 PM, John Wilson <wilson at dbit.com> wrote:
www.eli.com. I assume it's just "& son" now (Neal Heffron I think?
he was cool). Their *awesome* dusty old shop is long gone
check out: http://www.eli.com/index.cfm?template=history
The old man was the first DEC reseller.
The old warehouse is still there. The son tried to get into the PC business in the late 80s and the shop that had all the cool old 'tronics in it closed, since the PC customers did not like the dirty and dark. Like John, other of us "nerdi" knights knew it as a holy place.
Clem
FYI: I bought my still working Tek 465B o'scope for $25 long ago (and it still has a DEC asset tag on the back ;-)
I still use to debug HW.
From: "Brian Schenkenberger, VAXman-" <system at TMESIS.COM>
Which tests???
The worst one was with the letters going down both margins (part of set #1).
Are Eli Heffron still in biz?
www.eli.com. I assume it's just "& son" now (Neal Heffron I think?
he was cool). Their *awesome* dusty old shop is long gone (I was kicked
out of there once in 6th or 7th grade) so I think it's mail-order-only,
but they have plenty of stuff and their prices are reasonable. VT520s
for less than my VT100 was!!!
I've not tried these test on a plain ol' VT100. The oldest kit I've used
was a VT220 and it passes all tests as expected.
I'm sure the same is true for the author. Who'd think DEC would mess up
their own compatibility? Plus the tests made no allowance for not having
the AVO, which the 101 and plenty of 100s didn't.
Anyway this is going to be OCD heaven -- more pointless details to obsess
over! And I appreciate the warning to be on the lookout if I ever lose my
mind and want to add VT220 emulation. I totally would have assumed it was
just a matter of adding new stuff, not changing the old stuff.
John Wilson
D Bit
From: "Jerome H. Fine" <jhfinedp3k at compsys.to>
At the risk of being extremely stupid, I would also appreciate
being able to run the same tests - just for the sake of knowing
what is being discussed. However, as a simple PDP-11 fellow,
I can't run VMS stuff and all I found was source for VMS.
Did you run the VTTEST code using a PDP-11? If so, which
operating system? Was that a real PDP-11 or E11?
It was Brian's great-escape.tmesis.com setup (which is awesome!!!).
For E11, I used the undocumented (because it's too easy to trip up and the
lack of DNS is annoying) TELNET command in the DOS version (only):
; great-escape.tmesis.com
; log in with VTTEST (no password) to test VT100 compatibility
net start ether-0 dhcp eth0:
def key f1 = "telnet 24.187.213.28"+chr$(13)
def key f2 = "VTTEST"+chr$(13)
So start E11 with this command file, then press F1 to connect, and F2
at the login prompt.
For the real VT100 and VT101, I used Linux. I don't have a getty on my
COM port so I did "telnet </dev/ttyS0 >/dev/ttyS0" and once that started up,
"stty ixon </dev/ttyS0" from another console so that XON/XOFF is honored
(lots of SUBs without that, and if you do it before starting telnet, the
ixon flag gets cleared when /dev/ttyS0 is reopened -- I don't use stty
enough to remember the switch that makes changes stick).
Then "open great-escape.tmesis.com" on the VT100 and you're off.
John Wilson
D Bit
"Jerome H. Fine" <jhfinedp3k at compsys.to> writes:
John Wilson wrote:
I wrote:
- if hidden "wrap" flag is set and in final column and [?7h in effect, <CRLF>
- if in final column, set "wrap" flag for next time (otherwise clear it)
- write character, advancing cursor unless in final column
The plot sickens ... I was starting to feel paranoid and wanted a second
opinion. So I replaced the UA9636/UA9639 driver/receiver chips in the VT101
that's been kicking around my basement for 10+ years waiting for me to get
around to that. Now it fails VTTEST too, but not the same way as the VT100!
(Characters only at the margins in the failing test, but with gaps.) The
132-col tests are all wrong but that's no surprise since the VT101 has no AVO.
Some quick experimentation shows that in the VT101, the rules are the same
as the VT100 ones above as long as the cursor doesn't leave the line where
a char was written to column 80 for the first time. But if it does (by any
means -- DCA, ESC M, <LF>, ESC [B etc.) then the "wrap" flag is cleared,
whether a printing character is displayed on the other line or not.
OK so DEC's *own* VT100 knockoff isn't even VT100-compatible. Nap time!
At the risk of being extremely stupid, I would also appreciate
being able to run the same tests - just for the sake of knowing
what is being discussed. However, as a simple PDP-11 fellow,
I can't run VMS stuff and all I found was source for VMS.
The target OS is immaterial. The output to the terminal or emulator to be
tested, however, is. You can run VTTEST by simply telnetting to my VTTEST
account at 'great-escape.tmesis.com.' Use the username: VTTEST There is
NO password needed as this is a captive account.
Did you run the VTTEST code using a PDP-11? If so, which
operating system? Was that a real PDP-11 or E11?
If a PDP-11 was used, is there a link available to VTTEST.SAV
(source as well would be even more appreciated if it is in
MACRO-11 or FORTRAN) so I can run the VTTEST code?
Jerome Fine
The VTTEST suite was written in C. Unless you have a C compiler for your
PDP-11s OS, your going to have to translate the test suite's source your-
self to Macro-11 or FORTRAN.
--
VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)ORG
Well I speak to machines with the voice of humanity.
John Wilson <wilson at dbit.com> writes:
I wrote:
- if hidden "wrap" flag is set and in final column and [?7h in effect, <CRLF>
- if in final column, set "wrap" flag for next time (otherwise clear it)
- write character, advancing cursor unless in final column
The plot sickens ... I was starting to feel paranoid and wanted a second
opinion. So I replaced the UA9636/UA9639 driver/receiver chips in the VT101
that's been kicking around my basement for 10+ years waiting for me to get
around to that. Now it fails VTTEST too, but not the same way as the VT100!
(Characters only at the margins in the failing test, but with gaps.) The
132-col tests are all wrong but that's no surprise since the VT101 has no AVO.
Some quick experimentation shows that in the VT101, the rules are the same
as the VT100 ones above as long as the cursor doesn't leave the line where
a char was written to column 80 for the first time. But if it does (by any
means -- DCA, ESC M, <LF>, ESC [B etc.) then the "wrap" flag is cleared,
whether a printing character is displayed on the other line or not.
OK so DEC's *own* VT100 knockoff isn't even VT100-compatible. Nap time!
OK. You've convinced me to dust off my old VT100 and see what/how it does
with these VTTEST test. I have some other work to address first before my
international travel this week and VMS Bootcamp the week after but, if I'm
able to squeeze out a few precious moments, I'll look into it.
--
VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)ORG
Well I speak to machines with the voice of humanity.
